Dharampal Singh vs Union Of India And Others

By way of this OA, the applicant seeks disability pension alleging that he was enrolled in military service on 4th March, 2004 and was discharged

from service on 31st May, 2006 on the ground that he was a low medical category P2 and his disability 'Cortical Venous Thrombosis' was opined to

be neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service (NANA). Relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh Vs.

Union of India and Ors. 1(2013) 7 SCC 3161, it is submitted that the applicant was not suffering from any disability at the time of enrolment. Even the

Appeal Medical Board opined that the applicant has no deficits and made a complete summary, yet he cannot be posted to serve in High Altitude

Area (HAA) due to high risk of recurrence. Therefore, Army Authorities decided not to enrol the applicant back in military service. Hence, present

OA has been filed by the applicant seeking following reliefs:

A. Issue directions to the Respondents to declare the Disability of 'Cortical Venous Thrombosis' as either attributable or aggravated to military service

in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Re Dhararnvir Singh Vs. Union of India dated 02 July 2013.

B. Issue directions to the Respondents to grant Disability Pension from the date of discharge i.e. 31 May 2006 till date and for life with arrears and

penal interest @ 12% to meet the ends of equity, justice and fair play.

C. Issue directions to the Respondents to grant the consequent AGIF benefits to the Applicant in the light of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High

Court Judgement in Re Paramjit Singh Versus Union of India dated 12 Feb 2008 which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Order

dated 04 April 2011.

D. Issue directions to the Respondents to grant LPG Agency to the Applicant if the Disability Pension is quantified more than 20% as per the rules of

the subject.

E. Pass such other and further orders/directions to the Respondents in the attendant genuine circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice.

In the counter affidavit, the respondents have admitted that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 4th March, 2004 and discharged from service

on 31st May, 2006 after rendering 02 years, 02 months and 27 days total service in the Army.He was downgraded to low medical category,

S1H1A1P2 (T24) El with effect from 19th April, 2005. On review, he was placed in low medical category S1H1A1P2 (Permanent) El with effect

from 22nd November, 2005 for two years as a case of 'CORTICAL VENOUS THROMBOSIS 1-82.8'. As the applicant was placed in low medical

category w.e.f. 22nd November, 2005, he applied for sheltered appointment to continue in service, but his case was not recommended by the

Commanding Officer. However, his case was reviewed by OIC Records wherein it was found that no sheltered appointment was available to provide

himdueto holding of surplus manpower of particular trade/category to trade which he belonged. Therefore, further retention of the applicant in service

in low medical category was not considered in the organizational interest in terms of paragraphs 4 and 5 of IHQ MOD (Army) New Delhi letter No.

B/10122/LMC/ MP-3(PBOR) dated 15th March, 2000. The applicant was thus issued discharge order by Record office w.e.f. 31st May, 2006. The

Release Medical Board held on 13th March, 2006 considered his disability 'CORTICAL VENOUS THROMBOSIS 1-82.8' @ 20% for life, but the

same was opined to be neither attributable to nor aggravated (NANA) by service. It is submitted that the Note issued by the President, Medical Board

clearly mentioned that 'Though the disablement has been mentioned in percentage in Para 6 of Part V, this does not mean entitlement, since the

invaliding/disability is neither attributable nor aggravated by service'.

It is further submitted that the appeal was filed by the applicant dated 28th December, 2006 against rejection of disability pension to the Additional

Directorate General Personnel Services, IHQ of MOD (Army) for examination vide Record Office, Bombay Engineer Group, Kirkee letter No

15575779/11/D/Pen/Appeal dated 29th March, 2007. The Appellate Committee of First Appeal rejected the said appeal vide IHQ of MOD (Army)

letter No. B/40S02/ 295/07/AG/PS-4(Imp-II) dated 28th August, 2007. Thereafter, the applicant sent his second appeal against the above order to

Government of India, Ministry of Defence vide Record Office, Bombay Engineer Group, Kirkee letter No.15575779X/19/D/Pen/ Appeal dated 12th

July, 2008. Government of India, MoD vi de their letter No. 1(376)/2008/D(Pen/Appeal) dated 06/10th October, 2008 directed Record Office Bombay

Engineer Group to conduct Appeal Medical Board along with sanction of DGAFMS to carryout Appeal Medical Board at Base Hospital Delhi Cantt.

Accordingly, Appeal Medical Board of the applicant was carried out at the Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt on 13th July, 2009. The Appeal Medical Board

considered the disability of applicant as NANA with Nil percentage for life. The respondents have given summary and opinion of Appeal Medical

Board (Medicine &, Neurology Specialist) Base Hospital, Delhi dated 29th June, 2009 as under:

(a) A case of Cerebral venous thrombosis has made a complete recovery and has no deficits.

(b) No underlying pro-coagulant state is detected.

(c) He is however unfit to serve in High Altitude Area (HAA) due to high risk of recurrence.

(d) Condition is static since last review.

It is further submitted by the respondents that the decision on the second appeal of the applicant dated 21st May, 2008 was given by Government of

India, Ministry of Defence vide their letter No 1(376)/2008/D(Pen/Appeal) dated 15111 December, 2009, wherein it was stated that `Anthrombin III

deficiency, which is an inherent genetic/developmental condition. The course of ID is usually unaffected by servi ce condition. Hence, the ID is

declared as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The committee has, therefore, not accepted the second Appeal'.

The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the present OA is not maintainable has substance as primary relief claimed in the

present OA is grant of disability pension. Perusal of the copy of the O.A . No. 3684 of 2013 placed on record by the applicant goes to show that

besides other reliefs, following relief was also claimed by the applicant:

'Issue directions for the grant of Disability Pension in the light of the Supreme Court Judgment in Re Dharamvir Singh by declaring the

ailment as attributable to service'.

This OA was dismissed being time-barred at the stage of admission stage itself. Even if there was no decision of the case on merits, if the applicant

was aggrieved by the order, he should have resorted to the legal remedies available to him. Instead of doing so, he has filed fresh OA which, under the

circumstances, is not maintainable.

Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that since the earlier OA was not decided on merits, hence this Tribunal should consider the present

OA, even then record reveals that the applicant was discharged in low medical category w.e.f. 22nd November, 2005 for two years as a case of

'CORTICAL VENOUS THROMBOSIS 1-82.8'. The applicant applied for sheltered appointment but due to the non -availability of the same, he could

not be provided the same, hence he was discharged on 31st May, 2006. RMB was carried out at Military Hospital, Kirkee on 13th March, 2006 which

regarded his disability as NANA with percentage of disablement @ 20% for life. First appeal filed by the applicant was rejected. Pursuant to the

second appeal preferred by the applicant, Appeal Medical Board was conducted at Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt, which opined as under:

(a) A case of Cerebral venous thrombosis has made a complete recovery and has no deficits.

(b) Nounderlying pro-coagulant state is detected.

(c) He is however unfit to serve in High Altitude Area (HAA) due to high risk of recurrence.

(d) Condition is static since last review.

In view of this opinion, now since the applicant is not suffering from any disability, question of granting disability pension even otherwise does not

arise.

OA lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. All other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Pronounced in open court on this 30th day of June, 2020.